Red Sox Trade Deadline 2017 Thread

[Hugh2]

No, he wouldn't. Teams are not lining up to eat that contract and give up significant talent to do it.

 

The guy is a career .964 OPS hitter and is showing no signs of slowing down with his 1.014 slash line now....he's also on the hook for 25 million a year in an era when guys putting up his numbers are starting to get over 30 a year.

 

That's 150 million left, which isn't that big nowadays.

 

But you're right, I don't think teams are lining up to give up prospects and eat that contract but why would the Reds just give him to us then? He is the face of their franchise, do you really think their ownership is going to trade him to us for peanuts just to clear out some payroll? That's not happening.

[jacksonianmarch]

That is true. Once the capsule is ruptured or stretched, a recurrent dislocation increases in probability.

[jacksonianmarch]

Stanton has another 10 yrs and $295 mil guaranteed.

[jad]

I'm torn as to which SNL routine these trade discussions remind me of the most: Da Bears on Ditka, or perhaps Chris Farley as a dumb-ass interviewer of celebrities.

[BstHcpr]

The guy is a career .964 OPS hitter and is showing no signs of slowing down with his 1.014 slash line now....he's also on the hook for 25 million a year in an era when guys putting up his numbers are starting to get over 30 a year.

 

That's 150 million left, which isn't that big nowadays.

 

But you're right, I don't think teams are lining up to give up prospects and eat that contract but why would the Reds just give him to us then? He is the face of their franchise, do you really think their ownership is going to trade him to us for peanuts just to clear out some payroll? That's not happening.

 

He's making more than a fourth of their total payroll for a 5th place team. His $157 million remaining cover his 34-40 seasons. Aging 1B have a notoriously poor track record of performance.

 

And stop pretending that swallowing $157 million doesn't come with an opportunity cost. Because Sandoval's contract was on the roster that directly impacted our ability to pursue Encarncion or other impact free agents.

[jacksonianmarch]

He has $295 mil remaining guaranteed

[BstHcpr]

I'm torn as to which SNL routine these trade discussions remind me of the most: Da Bears on Ditka, or perhaps Chris Farley as a dumb-ass interviewer of celebrities.

 

When you figure out your angsty turmoil let us know

[BstHcpr]

He has $295 mil remaining guaranteed

 

Votto

[jacksonianmarch]

Stanton

[Hugh2]

He's making more than a fourth of their total payroll for a 5th place team. His $157 million remaining cover his 34-40 seasons. Aging 1B have a notoriously poor track record of performance.

 

And stop pretending that swallowing $157 million doesn't come with an opportunity cost. Because Sandoval's contract was on the roster that directly impacted our ability to pursue Encarncion or other impact free agents.

 

The Reds aren't trading Votto, you can take that to the bank. Not sure about the rest of your point, is anything being up against the cap makes us less likely to trade for Votto

[jacksonianmarch]

Stanton is in the third year of the new contract. The first three years pays him only $30 mil total. The last 10 seasons pay him $295 mil guaranteed

[Hugh2]

Sox gave up two top 100 prospects for a guy making close to market money in Kimbrel.

 

Votto would demand a steeper return than that.

 

Maybe if they were interested in rebuilding they would take S. Travis/Groome/Chavis/Matta

[BstHcpr]

Stanton

 

Haha, no I was responding to post about Votto directly above your post about Stanton's contract.

[BstHcpr]

Sox gave up two top 100 prospects for a guy making close to market money in Kimbrel.

 

Votto would demand a steeper return than that.

 

Maybe if they were interested in rebuilding they would take S. Travis/Groome/Chavis/Matta

 

Craig Kimbrel would have gotten far more than 3/37 if he was a free agent in 2016. No one would give a 34 year old Votto 7 years if he was a free agent this year.

[jacksonianmarch]

Kimbrel will likely reset the market if he stays on course.

[Hugh2]

Craig Kimbrel would have gotten far more than 3/37 if he was a free agent in 2016. No one would give a 34 year old Votto 7 years if he was a free agent this year.

 

It's 6 years, not 7, and Votto is still 33. Cliff Lee was getting offered 132 and 138 million dollars from the Yankees and Rangers at 33 years old. That was 4 years ago and salary inflation has been going up appx 10% in baseball. I know it seems crazy but Votta would probably get paid something very close to what he's owed in free agency.

 

He's easily one of the best hitters in all of the baseball and has shown zero signs if slowing down, zero. Now maybe the Sox and no team would want to give up top prospects for Votto, I disagree with that but perhaps I'm wrong. If I am wrong. I'm fairly certain, as I said before, the Reds aren't giving him up without a significant return. Smaller market teams don't exist for our pleasure and to make trades for us. It has to work for them and they have to sell it to their fan base. I highly doubt they are interested in salary relief.

[Hugh2]

Greinke got 206 million for 6 years at 32. Salaries are ridiculous, just wait until the Machado. Harper generation starts getting paid. Stanton's 300 million will look like the new norm.

[BstHcpr]

It's 6 years, not 7, and Votto is still 33. Cliff Lee was getting offered 132 and 138 million dollars from the Yankees and Rangers at 33 years old. That was 4 years ago and salary inflation has been going up appx 10% in baseball. I know it seems crazy but Votta would probably get paid something very close to what he's owed in free agency.

 

He's easily one of the best hitters in all of the baseball and has shown zero signs if slowing down, zero. Now maybe the Sox and no team would want to give up top prospects for Votto, I disagree with that but perhaps I'm wrong. If I am wrong. I'm fairly certain, as I said before, the Reds aren't giving him up without a significant return. Smaller market teams don't exist for our pleasure and to make trades for us. It has to work for them and they have to sell it to their fan base. I highly doubt they are interested in salary relief.

 

lmao Cliff Lee's contract as a defense for Votto's is pretty hilarious. He didn't even pitch the last 2.5 years of his contract, and the Phillies are now the worst team in baseball because of contracts like Lee, Howard, Halladay, etc...

 

You are like the Phil Jackson of Talksox

[Hugh2]

lmao Cliff Lee's contract as a defense for Votto's is pretty hilarious. He didn't even pitch the last 2.5 years of his contract, and the Phillies are now the worst team in baseball because of contracts like Lee, Howard, Halladay, etc...

 

You are like the Phil Jackson of Talksox

 

Weak argument, go back and reread what I wrote. I didn't use Lees contract I used the offers he got. Yes he got injured, hindsight is 20/20 but in no way shape or form does that change the market at present. 3 teams were willing to pay him that money, that's the point.

 

That's just one example, I could care less about the results or another teams record the point was what the market is. And I don't think anyone would agree the market has depreciated in recent years.

Edited July 22, 2017 by Hugh2

[BstHcpr]

Weak argument, go back and reread what I wrote. I didn't use Lees contract I used the offers he got. Yes he got injured, hindsight is 20/20 but in no way shape or form does that change the market at present. 3 teams were willing to pay him that money, that's the point.

 

That's just one example, I could care less about the results or another teams record the point was what the market is. And I don't think anyone would agree the market has depreciated in recent years.

 

You are not only saying that Votto is worth $147 million, but several top Red Sox prospects on top of that. Therefore, you have to believe Votto at age 34 next year is a $200 million asset with almost $50 million in surplus value.

 

That is asinine, but considered you gave Joakim Noah $70 million, I am not surprised.

[BstHcpr]

Also, Lee and Grienke were given far less years than Votto, whose contract runs until his age 40 season.

[Hugh2]

You are not only saying that Votto is worth $147 million, but several top Red Sox prospects. Therefore, you have to believe Votto at age 34 next year is a $200 million asset with almost $50 million in surplus value.

 

That is asinine, but considered you gave Joakim Noah $70 million, I am not surprised.

 

Not sure what's up with the animosity dude but whatever it's cool. I think you failed to see my original point. The Reds are going to demand that for Votto, that doesn't mean he's worth it...(the point is coming here) it means the Reds have no interest in selling on Votto. They don't exist to do us any favors.

 

If they did intend on selling Votto then one has to consider the premium teams pay at the trade deadline. Teams always overpay, so the fact that that would be on overpay is mute.

 

To be fair I don't really know what it would cost to get Votto but my original point was I don't think the Sox would be willing to pay that price, and I don't think the Reds would just give him to us for what we think he'd be worth. It's not realistic.

[Nick]

Hopefully Nick was kidding. Otherwise that suggestion is just like George Constanza when he worked for the Yankees. "I figured out how we can get Bonds and Griffey!! And we wouldn't have to give up that much! !!"

 

The more I think about it, the Alonso/Devers solution is the best solution so far....

 

Thanks....I was kidding.

 

Poster above me had Sox obtaining Stanton. I'd thought I'd join the 'fun'.

[Kimmi]

Yes, those are hard to measure. What is not so hard to measure is OPS, WAR etc. We have a problem offensively, and unless a new infusion of talent at 3B, our major problem, is found, we will need to address it in other ways-and adding Avila would be a very good way to deal with it. Our catchers are both bottom third in most offensive categories. I would trade their unmeasurable defensive stats for more offense in a heartbeat.

 

Our pitchers are pitching great. How much of that is due to our catchers is difficult to measure. With that being said, I would not trade our catchers for more offense at that position.

[Kimmi]

Leon and Vazquez are both good defensive catchers, but I give the edge to Vazquez.

 

I really don't care if either hit. Someone has to bat ninth. Upgrade the top eight somewhere. Specifically 1b...

 

Ding ding ding!

[Kimmi]

Anyone who suggests trading JBJ is drunk, high, joking or a combination thereof.

 

As is pretty evident in some of these posts, defense is undervalued at the expense of offense.

 

Part of the reason that our pitchers have been so good is the defense they have playing behind them.

[jacksonianmarch]

As is pretty evident in some of these posts, defense is undervalued at the expense of offense.

 

Part of the reason that our pitchers have been so good is the defense they have playing behind them.

 

JBJ has also been a rare spot of solid offense in your lineup as well. He isn't a one trick pony. He doesn't get dealt

[Kimmi]

It's not an enigma at all. Papi was a world class presence in your order. He left a major void. Your lineup shortened and wasn't replaced.

 

The problem with this line up is not the absence of Papi.

[jacksonianmarch]

So removing a .401OBP and OPS of 1.021 isn't an issue? He elongated your lineup. He saw a ton of pitches. He reached base 40% of the time. Guys hitting in front of him and behind him saw more pitches to hit and translated to Hanley and Pedey showing power they hadn't seen in years. You replaced the heart of your order with a guy who was allowed to walk for nothing in Moreland. This effectively shortened your lineup. Removing Shaw and relying on Pablo also hurt your lineup as it created a black hole where reasonable performance had been. We saw a similar issue when we lost Cano. We thought we could improve in other areas and replace MVP level performance. It didn't work out that way at all. You need to have a true masher in the middle of your order. That would suddenly and consistently elevate the play of those around him

[Larry Cook]

So removing a .401OBP and OPS of 1.021 isn't an issue? He elongated your lineup. He saw a ton of pitches. He reached base 40% of the time. Guys hitting in front of him and behind him saw more pitches to hit and translated to Hanley and Pedey showing power they hadn't seen in years. You replaced the heart of your order with a guy who was allowed to walk for nothing in Moreland. This effectively shortened your lineup. Removing Shaw and relying on Pablo also hurt your lineup as it created a black hole where reasonable performance had been. We saw a similar issue when we lost Cano. We thought we could improve in other areas and replace MVP level performance. It didn't work out that way at all. You need to have a true masher in the middle of your order. That would suddenly and consistently elevate the play of those around him

 

I agree 100%. And it is why I blame Dave for the mess we are in!

 

He trades for every broke down reliever known to man. Not to mention mop up man abad, who is a bad pitcher.

 

He put third base in the hands of Pablo with nothing as far as a backup plan after he traded away Shaw and Moncada.

 

Ps: I totally support trading moncada and kopeck for sale, but he left us reliant on Pablo with no backup plan at third base.

 

Under his esteemed leadership most of our brightest and best have deserted the operations department and left for greener pastures.

 

Dave needs a taxi ride to the airport and a one way plane ticket to anywhere.